Apples to Apples

[Sharky974]

I just wanted to address this topic, if you go back and read our editorials you'll understand why we do things the way we do. I'll go ahead and summarize some points though.

First of all you have to understand we aren't reviewing video cards.

We are evaluating the gameplay experience provided by video cards in games.

What is "playable" is subjective, to a point. Some games run differently than other games, for example Call of Duty 2 I have no problem playing the game at 25FPS and higher, the gameplay is just different at lower framerates than some other games. In the Sims 2 I have no problem playing the game at 20FPS and higher, again the gameplay is simply different. However in most games our baseline is 30FPS and higher with vsync off. I think most will agree if you can sustain 30FPS or higher CONSISTENTLY (key word there) then you will have an enjoyable experience. Consistency is very important since as we as humans notice the CHANGE in framerate, and that is what annoys us most.

Since we use this same formula and criteria for every game we test with every video card the results are very much comparable. Even if you disagree with the settings we have found playable you can still tell which card is faster, an example.

Card A = 1024x768 noaa/noaf

Card B = 1600x1200 4xaa/16xaf

An extreme example, but you can easily tell that Card B is a LOT faster. This being able to tell if the card is faster is the same result you get when doing an apples to apples test, since isn't the goal to see which card is faster? Well, you can see the same thing with our gameplay evaluation.

A lighter example

Card A = 1280x1024 2xaa/16xaf

Card B = 1280x1024 4xaa/16xaf

Ok, obviously you can still tell Card B is faster, but not a great deal. This is important because then you have to look at the price the card is selling for and determine if the price difference is worth the performance improvement/visual improvement and experience compared to the other card. Our eval method can tell you all of this, it covers ALL bases.

Visual quality is important to gamers and our eval method takes into account ALL forms of features out there, such as in-game settings like HDR and other settings like Transparency Multisampling/Supersampling, Adaptive AA, High Quality AF, Gamma Correct AA enabled on NV cards, etc.... Our site is unique in that we explore and use all of these features just like gamers will.

Our eval method is setup just like a gamer does when he plays a game. What do you do when you get a brand new game? I bet you put it in, install it, and go inside the game and mess with and figure out what in-game settings you can enable, how high you can set them, what resolution, AA and AF level you can run at, right? Well, that's exactly what we do as well! It matches perfectly with how gamers play their games.

The facts are every other site does cookie cutter apples to apples benchmarks, if you want to see those kind of "reviews" then by all means do so. We don't do that anymore, we have chosen to implement a system that more closely matches how gamers play games and what a gamer looks for, visual quality/experience.

We always urge everyone to read several reviews, that's the great thing about the Internet, you can read ours, read other websites, and make up your own mind on a product.

Card A = 1024x768 noaa/noaf

Card B = 1600x1200 4xaa/16xaf

An extreme example, but you can easily tell that Card B is a LOT faster.

What kind of a vague term is "a lot"? In a professional review? There's one of the big problems. There is no nuance with this system. If you look at a benchmark review, you might see that card B is 45% faster frame rates, for example. This tell you something more useful. In how the card scales for the future. Depending on the game, if card B is a X1900, card A can be anywhere from a X800pro to a 7800GTX. There is a BIG difference in those two, but it wouldn't be reflected in your benchmarks.

Next there is the problem of general confusion. You throw around so many MSAA/TRAA/SSAA acroynms the average user has no idea how they compare. One can only assume you chose roughly eqaul IQ settings, regardless of different AA methods. But that's a big assumption to make. Looking at your reviews will not even tell you WHY you chose the different methods of AA per card. In your example you use only AA and AF. However your true reviews look more like:

Card A (2XSSAA8XAF) Card B (4XMSAA16XAF)

Now we are not even dealing apparantly in eqaul settings anymore, as one is using SSAA and the other MSAA.


Also the best playable format makes no sense to me, or the vast majority of your viewers, for another simple reason, we're increasingly on fixed res LCD's. What do I care if CardB can run at 1600X1200. I'm on a 1280X1024 LCD, not a CRT. So the only usefulness for me of your review is to say that Card B is clearly faster. However your system makes it MUCH harder for me to tell how MUCH faster, exactly. Is it 30%? 60%? There is a big difference between 30 and 60%. But your review loses it.

Or how about even if cards can run the same playable settings, one can still be quiet a bit faster. Say 10 or 20%. But your system loses that accuracy. 12X10 with 4XAA can allow for hugely different cards to have it as the best playable res. It is so broad. Your system only says "for our purposes these cards are eqaul since they both allow the same settings" when they may not be.

Also your system heavily increases the subjectivity. Not only in what settings are chosen, but what constitutes "playable". These are highly subjective. Playable for you may be 30 FPS, maybe for the next guy he wants 60 at all times. So you're just adding subjectivity on top of subjectivity. One guy may rather up the AA, another the res or AF. One guy may prefer 16X12 2XAA, another may think 12X10 6XAA looks better. But your review only assumes whatever you decide to do is the best playable, and gives a single benchmark their. Severely limiting the actual info.

This all reached it's summation with your recent X1900 review, where you declared it eqaul to the 7800 512. This is simply a wrong and uninformed conclusion by all accounts.

If you want to do something different, I like the idea of all manual fraps runs that you claim to do. But do that with standard apples to apples benches. Then you would be bringing something useful to the table.

The proof this system doesn't work is that it has hardly caught the internet on fire. I know of only one other site (forget the name) doing reviews like you. I skip their's immediatly as well. At least in your case you are one of the biggest sites so I mayl read your reviews on that basis alone. However move the format to a small site, and I have no interest whatsoever as the format has next to no usable information. When Anand gathers all the reviews for a new card in a row, and I get to that other site using best playable, I immediatly click back. I'm just not interested.

Anyway, I expect this post to be locked like the last. Ah well.

 

[Brent_Justice]

Let me break this down a bit and tackle this, if I don't cover everything you want to know you can feel free to email me anytime and I'll do what I can to answer your concerns.

What kind of a vague term is "a lot"? In a professional review?

The use of "a lot" was to get my point across that there is a 'large' difference in visual quality settings which implies a large performance increase.

There's one of the big problems. There is no nuance with this system. If you look at a benchmark review, you might see that card B is 45% faster frame rates, for example. This tell you something more useful. In how the card scales for the future. Depending on the game, if card B is a X1900, card A can be anywhere from a X800pro to a 7800GTX. There is a BIG difference in those two, but it wouldn't be reflected in your benchmarks.

The question isn't if Card B gets xxx% faster framerates, the question is what can we do with this higher framerate, what kind of benefit does it provide the gamer.

Next there is the problem of general confusion. You throw around so many MSAA/TRAA/SSAA acroynms the average user has no idea how they compare.

Video cards support these features, games support these features, it makes sense to explore them since they are made FOR gamers.

One can only assume you chose roughly eqaul IQ settings, regardless of different AA methods. But that's a big assumption to make. Looking at your reviews will not even tell you WHY you chose the different methods of AA per card. In your example you use only AA and AF. However your true reviews look more like:

Card A (2XSSAA8XAF) Card B (4XMSAA16XAF)

Now we are not even dealing apparantly in eqaul settings anymore, as one is using SSAA and the other MSAA.

Exactly, and in the example Card B is allowing a better visual experience compared to Card A. The gameplay advantage provided by the faster performance allows the higher AA/AF setting.

Also the best playable format makes no sense to me, or the vast majority of your viewers, for another simple reason, we're increasingly on fixed res LCD's. What do I care if CardB can run at 1600X1200. I'm on a 1280X1024 LCD, not a CRT. So the only usefulness for me of your review is to say that Card B is clearly faster. However your system makes it MUCH harder for me to tell how MUCH faster, exactly. Is it 30%? 60%? There is a big difference between 30 and 60%. But your review loses it.

I'd say most gamers still game on CRT's, but LCD use is increasing. In fact we will be including Widescreen LCD resolutions in future reviews.

Or how about even if cards can run the same playable settings, one can still be quiet a bit faster. Say 10 or 20%. But your system loses that accuracy. 12X10 with 4XAA can allow for hugely different cards to have it as the best playable res. It is so broad. Your system only says "for our purposes these cards are eqaul since they both allow the same settings" when they may not be.

If one card is a lot faster at the same playable settings the graph would show it.

Also your system heavily increases the subjectivity. Not only in what settings are chosen, but what constitutes "playable". These are highly subjective. Playable for you may be 30 FPS, maybe for the next guy he wants 60 at all times. So you're just adding subjectivity on top of subjectivity. One guy may rather up the AA, another the res or AF. One guy may prefer 16X12 2XAA, another may think 12X10 6XAA looks better. But your review only assumes whatever you decide to do is the best playable, and gives a single benchmark their. Severely limiting the actual info.

Yep, our evaluations are subjective. There is a degree of objectivity though since we do base what is playable on the same formula each time, so things are comparable.

This all reached it's summation with your recent X1900 review, where you declared it eqaul to the 7800 512. This is simply a wrong and uninformed conclusion by all accounts.

Equal in some games, not equal in others, in some it was a faster. I can only show you what I experienced, and that is what I experienced.

If you want to do something different, I like the idea of all manual fraps runs that you claim to do. But do that with standard apples to apples benches. Then you would be bringing something useful to the table.

Rather, we'd be taking something away from the table, and that is figuring out what kind of gameplay and experience a video card is delivering.

The proof this system doesn't work is that it has hardly caught the internet on fire. I know of only one other site (forget the name) doing reviews like you. I skip their's immediatly as well. At least in your case you are one of the biggest sites so I mayl read your reviews on that basis alone. However move the format to a small site, and I have no interest whatsoever as the format has next to no usable information. When Anand gathers all the reviews for a new card in a row, and I get to that other site using best playable, I immediatly click back. I'm just not interested.

Quite frankly most sites don't do it because it is so involved and time consuming and requires a lot of work and effort. I do this full time, and even with that I'm always rushing to get an eval done, it is that involved.

Others may take the easy way out, but we won't, we'll stick to providing useful information to gamers.

 

[topdragon147]

welcome to last year, lol

 

[Dan_D]

People haven't seemed to grasp the fact that frame rates aren't everything. When all other factors are equal, the faster card wins. However things are rarely if ever equal. The [H] reviews show you which cards provide higher resolution gameplay, and what the image quality is like. Brent covers in detail issues experienced with each card in given games at any time. This should be helpfull to some people when selecting a card.

It's that simple. It's not just that the ATi card A and nVidia card B are the same speed, or one is faster than the other. What if card A is faster but has issues with games and falls on it's face doing certain tasks? Then you'd probably not be satisfied with your purchase of card A.

Say you saw 3D Mark 2006 scores for card A and rushed out to buy it and then went to play FEAR or Doom 3 on it, and that card turned out to be slower than the other card for playing the games you wanted to play. You'd likely not understand, think there was something wrong, or you'd feel like you made a bad decision. Really you did because you looked at a benchmark rather than what the card can do in real games.

The [H] method may go against the grain of other sites sometimes, but frankly the [H] results are reproducable and easy to validate. The problem with the [H] reviews on video cards is you can't just look at graphs and get the story. It forces you to actually read the article and look at the data for each game to get the whole picture.

 

[dderidex]

The question isn't if Card B gets xxx% faster framerates, the question is what can we do with this higher framerate, what kind of benefit does it provide the gamer.
...
Video cards support these features, games support these features, it makes sense to explore them since they are made FOR gamers.
...
Exactly, and in the example Card B is allowing a better visual experience compared to Card A. The gameplay advantage provided by the faster performance allows the higher AA/AF setting.

Those are the key points in this debate, and why I think the [H] method has value.

I think the only area really open for question is the way they increase settings - preferring higher resolution to higher FSAA levels. I guess that's the preference of most gamers - no way to know, I suppose - but for me, I *definitely* prefer more medium resolutions and higher FSAA settings.

 

[arman01]

i don't like the method [H] uses to evaluate video cards either...

i dont want to know if card X is a lot faster than card Y because you can turn up AF on card X...i want to know EXACTLY how much card X is faster than card Y.

if apples to apples were provided for a series of resolutions and image quality settings, eg..
1024x768
1024x768 + 4xAA
1024x768 + 4xAA + 8xAF (and the same for 1280x1024, 1600x1200 etc)

WE (the readers) could then decide what is the optimal resolution we could play with each card, taking into consideration our own preferences, and the results from the various tests for various resolutions/iq options.

ie..my friend can comfortably play an FPS with 20fps, while i need at least 60 to play comfortably

 

[DandyBear]

I agree with the original poster. I have long abandoned Hardocp as the first place I come for reviews. The "Opinion" Brent and Kyle offer always seems lopsided to one end of the spectrum, so to speak. Nv%$ia cough, Nv%$ia. they'll lock this thread in no time.

 

[Grey]

My 'some joe from off the street' perspective - although I love ready HardOCP and lurk the forums a ton, I never give but a quick skim to video card benches and reviews written here because of the benchmark methodology.

Occasionally there will be a benchmark that has apples to apples in Hard reviews - I'd like to see that ratio reversed. I think it'd be great to have a small section in a review about what really is playable on the card, but want the lion's share of the benchmarks to be apples to apples.

I don't for see things changing because of my post (my first post!) but maybe it'll add to the weight of 'like' opinions and Hard will reconsider it's benchmark methodology at some point.

 

[pigwalk]

This is a little off topic, but why don't you guys keep some kind of database of the max playable settings per card? I'd love to just have to goto a drop down menu where i can pick the game, and card and find more or less the max I can play at without having to sift through the reviews.

-pig

 

[Drepd]

Seing that I am stuck at 1280x1024 resolution, i get a little confused when its time to buy a new card. I love the benchmarking technique here, however when it comes to the candy that I can utilize I can't find info..not just here but anywhere. Other places that do apple to apple don't benifit me either because they keep the settings at a specific place without pushing the envelope and just show raw numbers.

A max playable 7800gtx 512 in quake 4 is running 1600x1200 2x trssa / 8xaf UQ. Since I am stuck at 1280x1024 gaming is it feasible to just presume that I can run this same card at my res and force 8xaa / 16af and it will run just fine?

I guess my real question would be what would warrant me upgrading to a new card. Can I push the envelope or does it crumble at forced higher settings at lower resolutions? It seems like the performance benifits in reviews are always shown at the super high end...but what about us middle guys? One would just assume that you can take one of these cards, lower the res and max out just about everything, but I have been burned before assuming. My last upgrade, I spent to much money on and only got the benifit of an additional step of AF. Am I just shit out of luck? Do performance impacts only ocurr when you play at the top?

 

[spine]

Any scientific procedure should present the reader with proper objective uninterpreted results and then go on to draw conclusions and opinions based on those results.

If you only present subjective data, the reader then forms their subjective opinion on 2nd hand data which is inherently distorted.

I do not like HardOCP's reviewing because of this, and ultimately, I find myself utterly unable to truly get a good grasp of a card performance because of their refusal to post any real data.

I'll be the judge of what a playable framerate is, I'll be the judge of what is acceptable visual quality. Everyone's opinions of these will be different which is why a video card review should NOT only interpret these key details for you.


I think they should just post good raw framerate data and yes even fucking 3dmark results and if one card scores 'unfairly' higher in a certain test due to whatever, then they just need to add a little caption and have a section explaining what is going on. THAT would be alot more informative than refusing to post proper data at all.

If Card X scores 10% higher than Card Y but Card X doesn't look as good; they can just post screenshots detailing the difference and let the reader decide whether they want 10% more speed or want better visual quality.

 

[texuspete00]

I doubt the OP will be able to come up with very many convincing reasons [H] should do what EVERY other site is doing. How do we, as free to go where ever we please net citizens, benefit from [H] having the same review as everyone else? One could agree with you for the most part, while seeing some merit to their method, and naturally want it to stay.

 

[Brent_Justice]

Any scientific procedure should present the reader with proper objective uninterpreted results and then go on to draw conclusions and opinions based on those results.

Therein lies your flaw, we aren't undertaking a scientific procedure.

We are evaluating the gaming experience delivered by a video card in games. There is a degree of science/objectivity to it, but yes, it is subjective. We are gamers, giving our opinion of video cards ability to play games.

 

[BLiTzKRiEG]

It simply sounds to me like people don't understand how to interpret the reviews that [H] releases. i just don't understand what it is people can't figure out from the reviews? The evidence is always there... I don't think that its [H]'s fault that some of you can't make the connection between what their review is saying, and how it relates to a choice in purchasing a piece of hardware. Simply capturing a screenshot of a 3dmark score and explaining that one card has a higher score than the other, yet one has better quality isn't a review... thats an observation.

Anyone that can double click a mouse can conduct some of the review methods mentioned above.

Keep the reviews the same way [H].

 

[Trimlock]

i'm wondering why people still come out to try and give reasons why the [H] should be just another cookie cutter review platform

the day the [H] becomes like every other site is the day i leave it

and your world isn't going to go upside down if one site doesn't do something you dislike

 

[DandyBear]

I'll be the judge of what a playable framerate is, I'll be the judge of what is acceptable visual quality. Everyone's opinions of these will be different which is why a video card review should NOT only interpret these key details for you.

Brent, your not giving your readers the oportunity to formulate thier own opinion with cold hard data. That is our point. Your are merely taking your prospective and opinion and posting it online.

 

[BurntToast]

I vote apples to apples as well, hint my thread from yesterday.

You just can get any simpler than that and it weeds out all the politics.

BTW there might be a GOOD reason other reviews and nearly every other non computer related comparison/review uses apples to apples. It works and is the simplest format for USERS to make their own interpretation.

I can’t think of many areas, even scientific fields that use the [H] terminology. If you can point one out to me please let me know.

Example... MPG is a form of benchmarking. They don’t interpret 35MPG as "One tank of gas lasts a trip from Los Angeles to San Fransico with 3 occupants and 200lbs of cargo." That would be retarded. Then again, it's the [H] way of being “unique”.

 

[bboynitrous]

Those are the key points in this debate, and why I think the [H] method has value.

I think the only area really open for question is the way they increase settings - preferring higher resolution to higher FSAA levels. I guess that's the preference of most gamers - no way to know, I suppose - but for me, I *definitely* prefer more medium resolutions and higher FSAA settings.

We had a poll a while back ago asking which most people prefered here on the forums. The general consesus was that most gamers chose a higher resolution to higher AA/AF levels. I agree with that too because things look just crisper and cleaner with a higher resolution.

I like the way Hardocp does it's reviews. If i'm not satisfied with a level of performance on a card from the review (maybe it hovers around 30FPS which is acceptable to hard and me usually) and it does better than the other, then I know that card has that much more headroom in performance. Especially if i'm running a lower resolution. So I don't really mind if they show me 1600x1200 with 2xAA/16xAF. I'm pretty sure the card could handle 1280x1024 with at least 2xAA and 8xAF which are the settings I usually aim for.

Does that make sense?

Also, a lot of other websites don't make sense in terms of framerates, which I don't even bother reading a lot of the time because they don't explain anymore. I've seen firingsquad and a few other sites post FEAR framerates and i'm not sure if they're average, minimum or max because they seem to be out of wack all the time. I dont' really trust those websites anymore and I don't know if I ever will. They never explain any drops in framerates where it could matter the most and if the CPU bottlenecks too much etc.

 

[Firebat]

Im going to have to go with Sharky974 on this one. perhaps if you tried it at 5-6 settings for each game it would catch my attention. However, i don't seem to see the significance of comparing two different cards at two different settings. That doesn't tell me as much as apples to apples. In apples to apples i can chose a certain one of five or six graphs to see which one best fits me. The reason i don't just move on to another site is because there isn't one as dependable/respectable as hardocp.

Also if you would include Max framerates, Average, and Min framerates in an apple to apple comparison, this site would have all the data i would ever need.

 

[Firebat]

i'm wondering why people still come out to try and give reasons why the [H] should be just another cookie cutter review platform

the day the [H] becomes like every other site is the day i leave it

and your world isn't going to go upside down if one site doesn't do something you dislike

They wouldn't be just another cookie cutter review platform, they would have some of the most dependable results if they did apples to apples. Period.

 

[dderidex]

We had a poll a while back ago asking which most people prefered here on the forums. The general consesus was that most gamers chose a higher resolution to higher AA/AF levels. I agree with that too because things look just crisper and cleaner with a higher resolution.

Yes, but LCD users are becoming more and more common as time goes buy. Go into Best Buy sometime, and see how many systems you can even BUY without an LCD.

And the most common LCD resolution by a LONG shot is 1280x1024....which means such users simply don't have the choice which they'd prefer, they get that res, and need as much FSAA as possible, period.

(And, FWIW, that's fine with me and one reason I chose LCDs - I *do* happen to prefer AA over res just out of the gate)

I like the way Hardocp does it's reviews. If i'm not satisfied with a level of performance on a card from the review (maybe it hovers around 30FPS which is acceptable to hard and me usually) and it does better than the other, then I know that card has that much more headroom in performance. Especially if i'm running a lower resolution. So I don't really mind if they show me 1600x1200 with 2xAA/16xAF. I'm pretty sure the card could handle 1280x1024 with at least 2xAA and 8xAF which are the settings I usually aim for.

It's fine, and I'm not saying the reviews are unusable or anything. I actually like them, and think it's a good idea. I just with there were more options.

Like, maybe, comparison 'max playable settings' in both formats - one for CRT and one for LCD users. The CRTs are interested in as high res as possible, then applying as much FSAA as you can; and a second graph for LCD users showing a fixed res of 1280x1024 and how much FSAA or in-game settings need to be adjusted up or down to get playable FPS at that (since in-game quality sliders being dropped down still will not look as bad as playing a non-native res).

I think THAT would be the best thing to add to the reviews. Two graphs - one for CRTs, one for LCDs.

 

[Brent_Justice]

I think THAT would be the best thing to add to the reviews. Two graphs - one for CRTs, one for LCDs.

That is already the plan. I've got a brand new 2405FPW sitting on my desk dieing to show me what it can do in games.

 

[dderidex]

That is already the plan. I've got a brand new 2405FPW sitting on my desk dieing to show me what it can do in games.

LOL - well, yeah, a 2405fpw is a nice monitor (and how!), but....errr.....well, that's not what most people can afford.

 

[Brent_Justice]

LOL - well, yeah, a 2405fpw is a nice monitor (and how!), but....errr.....well, that's not what most people can afford.

I can downscale resolution obviously if I need to.

 

[BurntToast]

Yes, but LCD users are becoming more and more common as time goes buy. Go into Best Buy sometime, and see how many systems you can even BUY without an LCD.

And the most common LCD resolution by a LONG shot is 1280x1024....which means such users simply don't have the choice which they'd prefer, they get that res, and need as much FSAA as possible, period.

(And, FWIW, that's fine with me and one reason I chose LCDs - I *do* happen to prefer AA over res just out of the gate)



It's fine, and I'm not saying the reviews are unusable or anything. I actually like them, and think it's a good idea. I just with there were more options.

Like, maybe, comparison 'max playable settings' in both formats - one for CRT and one for LCD users. The CRTs are interested in as high res as possible, then applying as much FSAA as you can; and a second graph for LCD users showing a fixed res of 1280x1024 and how much FSAA or in-game settings need to be adjusted up or down to get playable FPS at that (since in-game quality sliders being dropped down still will not look as bad as playing a non-native res).

I think THAT would be the best thing to add to the reviews. Two graphs - one for CRTs, one for LCDs.

I'm a LCD gamer and I game at 1280x1024. I normally tend to play at the high or med levels. But in a few games (fear) I may dip into the low setting, but that is only if I must.

Normally I like playing at 60-100+ fps and to do this I turn off all that FAA crap. Heck I don’t even know what the standards are for AA any more, nor do I care.

I play at high FPS so that my card NEVER dips down low. Because even if I may have an average of FPS 60fps, there are times that It may dip down to 20fps when there is a lot of action going on in the screen.

So I compromise on quality and performance. I use high quality, decent resolution (native res), no AA of any kind and get great FPS.

So to me [H]'s reviews do nothing to me. Since they are full of AA benchmarks that I could care less. IMO [h]’s reviews are more homed in on the sigle player gamer, not multiplayer LAN gamer.

Some cards do better in AA than other cards. While other cards do better with no AA than other cards. This is another reason I don’t like [h]’s reviews. They don’t do anything for the type of gamer I am.

The [h] forums are a good source of information. The front page news isn’t that bad depending on the day. But the detailed data found in the reviews, not the reviews themselves are [h]s low point.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

I dont know about you guys but I'd rather know that Card A handles AA and AF better then Card b when spending $500bux on either one =p

I don't care about how a game plays at 1024x768 0aa 0af just to see how many FPS i can get 0.o Id rahter turn the FPS counter off and actually play ~.~ Which is why I like this method the most

 

[Worldhammer]

I get exactly what I want out of vid card reviews here. I then go to a couple of other places and see what they have to say. I get high end hardware so that I can turn on as much eye candy as I can squeeze out. Since the main competitors use differing methods to implement AA and AF to further IQ, how can that not be important? That's like buying a new car and simply buying the fastest one available and not caring what the interior/exterior looks like and how comfortable a ride it provides. Sure it's the fastest, then you discover that going over some train tracks nearly rattles the teeth out of your head. Suddenly fastest isn't all that it is cracked up to be.

Period.

 

[bboynitrous]

Yes, but LCD users are becoming more and more common as time goes buy. Go into Best Buy sometime, and see how many systems you can even BUY without an LCD.

And the most common LCD resolution by a LONG shot is 1280x1024....which means such users simply don't have the choice which they'd prefer, they get that res, and need as much FSAA as possible, period.

(And, FWIW, that's fine with me and one reason I chose LCDs - I *do* happen to prefer AA over res just out of the gate)



It's fine, and I'm not saying the reviews are unusable or anything. I actually like them, and think it's a good idea. I just with there were more options.

Like, maybe, comparison 'max playable settings' in both formats - one for CRT and one for LCD users. The CRTs are interested in as high res as possible, then applying as much FSAA as you can; and a second graph for LCD users showing a fixed res of 1280x1024 and how much FSAA or in-game settings need to be adjusted up or down to get playable FPS at that (since in-game quality sliders being dropped down still will not look as bad as playing a non-native res).

I think THAT would be the best thing to add to the reviews. Two graphs - one for CRTs, one for LCDs.

Yep, there are plenty of LCD users, including myself. I run a 19" LCD at 1280x1024. You don't have to tell me anything. It's just hard to cater to everyone. In the end though, unless there is some massive performance differences in the games I play on one card, you can't really go wrong with teh way they do things and get their information. Some people like going to places like firingsquad and anandtech to look and numbers and post them here to start flamewars. Not everyone is going to like the way they test games.

On a side note, that is a good idea about the two seperate CRT/LCD users tests. I never said their method was perfect but it's something newer and definitly worth reading (not saying you were saying that either

).

 

[Nidhogg]

i dont see why people think [H] should change their reviews.. if you want apples to apples there are tons of sites that do them, [H] is not the only hardware review site on the web.

i think its great that [H] does something diffrent, i can look at the same reviews from diffrent sites and take something diffrent from them. [H] should not become an apples to apples site, if anything i could see some apples to apples added to what they do but it would be retarded for them to do what ever other review site does.

the reviews at [H] set them apart and are one of the reasons i bother to come to this site. [H] is not the only site i go to for reviews, i read as many as i can find on a product that intrests me because not all sites give out all the same info.

if everyone did their reviews exactly the same what would be the point of going to more then one site? there are plenty of apples to apples sites out there, go to one of them if you are looking for that, then go to [H] for playable settings comparisons after that.

it is impossible to tell wich grass is greener until you have seen both sides.